law – Page 3 – understand-culture

Repeals

There have been many famous repeals or court decisions in American history. In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal (the American slogan for segregation of white and black Americans) was no longer constitutional, an act that negated their earlier ruling in 1896.

The first case in the U.S. in which the court system determined that a law was unconstitutional and should be repealed occurred in 1803. It was the case of Marbury v Madison, when the Supreme Court decided that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was conflicted with the Constitution and was therefore null and void.

The case of Betts v Brady ruled that the 6th and 14th Amendments of the constitution guaranteeing a right to legal counsel does not mean that the government has to provide counsel for someone who cannot afford it. Later, the case Gideon v Wainwright overruled this decision, and anyone accused of a crime is entitled to free counsel if he/she can’t afford an attorney.

“It was me, but ….”

There are numerous cases brought to court in America each year. Some of these involve suspects who wish to clarify their misdeeds amongst public discourse. This is particularly prevalent in the current case regarding the suspect of the Boston Marathon Bombings.

The suspect in the case pleaded not guilty although his defense lawyer admits “it was him.” This brings about the right to appear in court to argue your side of the story and expect a fair hearing followed by a fair trial.

Conciliation

Conciliationis is an additional step proposed in the dispute resolution process.

The conciliator meets with the parties separately at a so-called pre-caucus. The purpose is to help each party release their pent up concerns enough to enable them to gain a broader perspective on the dispute.

The parties then meet together at a joint session, where they discuss directly with each other instead of through a mediator.

The conciliator is there to help the parties take responsibility for managing their own conflict, rather than to judge between the merits of the position of one party or the other.

Speedy Trial

Again, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states clearly what Americans expect: „In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“

Various U.S. state and federal laws guaranty a more specific right to a speedy trial. In New York, for example, the prosecution (accuser) must be ready for trial within six months or the charges are dismissed. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 established time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal case.

Americans anticipate that there team leads not only hold a first hearing promptly. They want the conflict resolution process to come to a conclusion, to a judgement, promptly as well. A manager who is slow to decide – to make the „judgement call“ – is seen as someone who has weak resolve. To have resolve means to deal with something.

Americans believe that maintaining forward movement is critical to the success of every team.

Eyewitness testimony

Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation. This recollection is used as evidence to show what happened from a witness’ point of view.

Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions are unreliable; being easily manipulated, altered, and biased.

Many U.S. states are now attempting to make changes in how eyewitness testimony is presented in court. Eyewitness testimony is a specialized focus within cognitive psychology.

trial of the century

The O.J. Simpson Trial (1994–1995): Known as the “trial of the century,” this highly publicized courtroom drama saw both prosecution and defense present their cases openly, with the accused and accusers present. The trial was televised, and the process was marked by direct confrontation and cross-examination, embodying the American value of open, adversarial hearings .

Chicago Seven

The Trial of the Chicago Seven (1969–1970): This trial of anti-Vietnam War protesters was notable for its highly public, contentious hearings, with defendants, prosecutors, and witnesses confronting each other in court. The proceedings were widely covered and became a symbol of open, adversarial justice in the U.S..

direct defense and rebuttal

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The U.S. legal system, as seen in landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison and Dred Scott v. Sandford, is built on the principle that all parties must be heard in open court, with opportunities for direct defense and rebuttal.

adversarial process

The Use of Witness Testimony in Criminal Trials. The American legal system is built on the adversarial process, where both objective evidence (documents, physical evidence) and subjective witness testimony are presented and cross-examined. The right to confront witnesses (as discussed in Crawford v. Washington) ensures that subjective accounts are scrutinized alongside factual evidence before a judge or jury decides the outcome.

confidential sources

Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). This Supreme Court case addressed whether journalists could refuse to testify about confidential sources. The Court considered both the objective need for evidence in criminal cases and the subjective arguments about press freedom. The majority opinion emphasized that courts must balance these interests on a case-by-case basis, reviewing both facts and testimony to reach a fair outcome. The case illustrates the American approach of acting as a judge—considering all available evidence and subjective claims before making a ruling.